Beis Din: Is it irrelevant?

One of the major issues raised in child abuse cases is the claim that the halacha requires that a Jew must use a beis din and not go to secular courts. This in fact is clearly codified in Shulchan Aruch.

Shulchan Aruch(C.M. 26:1): It is prohibited to have a case judged by non‑Jewish judges in their courts (i.e., fixed chambers where they judge cases). This prohibition applies even when the non‑Jewish judges make judgments according to Jewish law and even where both litigants agree to go. Whoever goes to them for judgment is a wicked person (rasha). It is as if he blasphemed and raised his hand against the Torah of Moshe. Rema:  Beis din can place him in cherem (ostracize them) until he removes the authority of non‑Jews from his disputant and similarly he can be ostracized for going. Even if someone doesn’t have a non‑Jewish court judge the case but uses non‑Jews to force another to go to a Jewish court, deserves to be punished by being placed in stocks… Someone who goes to a non‑Jewish court and is found guilty according to their laws and then he goes to a Jewish court – some say that the Jewish court is not to judge the case and others say that it is…and the first view appears to me to be correct.

However, the halacha also states if beis din is powerless to resolve the case than it is supposed to give permission to go to secular courts.

Shulchan Aruch(C.M. 26:2): If the non‑Jews are the controlling power and the litigant is powerful in his own right and therefore the person can not recover what is his by the authority of the Jewish court – he should first summon his opponent to the Jewish court. If his opponent refuses to go – he should obtain permission from the Jewish court and then use the non‑Jewish court to recover what is his from his opponent. Rema: The Jewish court has the right to go to the non‑Jewish court and to testify that one person owes the other money. All this is only if one of the litigants refuses to obey the Jewish court. Otherwise it is prohibited for a Jewish court to give authorization for Jews to have their dispute presented to a non‑Jewish court.

In reality, it seems that when gedolim get involved in cases that they know beis din is helpless they go directly to secular courts e.g., the dispute of inheritance in Satmer or the Lubavitcher Rebbe's attempt to retrieve a libary - or Michael Hersh's absurd lawsuit for $411 million dollars.

One such case is the current dispute between Ponovitch of Bnei Brak and Grodno of Ashdod. Ashdod News

It is important to point out that the requirement to go to beis din is true only when we need a trial and want to establish if someone is guilty or owes money. However, if we are dealing with issues of pikuach nefesh and are concerned only with protecting the innocent victim then there is no need of a beis din at all - except as Rav Sternbuch  said, to me, "so that the world won't be hefker." And even that aspect is only true if it doesn't endanger the welfare of anyone.